Doorstop 07 September 2026

‍

Subjects: Housing supply, first-home buyers, self-managed super funds (SMSF) bans, CFMEU, construction insolvencies, Senate FOI on Labor SMSF housing modelling, early access to superannuation, One Nation superannuation policy.

E&OE....

Senator Bragg:

Well, it's getting on for three months since the Budget, and you'd have to say that the government have gone out of their way to make housing worse in Australia, not better. What we see are higher rents, lower levels of housing supply, and overall a system which is not getting easier for younger people. We're not seeing first-home buyers coming to the market. In fact, we're seeing fewer. And what we saw last week at the Senate Hearings was that loan applications for owner-occupiers are down by as much as 15%. 15% down. So we are not seeing an influx of first-home buyers into Australian housing. And so I think the Australian people would rightly say, why does the government have a policy to cut housing supply? Why are they cutting housing through their housing taxes policy? And for today's purposes, why are they cutting housing supply that would have been provided by self-managed super funds? What we saw from the FOI is that the government failed to do any analysis on their judgment with the Greens that SMSFs should be banned from investing into new housing. Now, this Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, if he was a CFO of a company, he would have walked the plank a long time ago because his Budget has fallen apart in four or five different ways. But on this issue, how could you have a position where on one hand you're making a distinction between new and existing housing, and on the other you are banning all investment by borrowing into new and existing housing? That's what he's doing with SMSFs. And so they did no analysis, and it's no wonder that their numbers are radically wrong. Chalmers said there'd be 4,000 fewer houses. There will be 16,000 fewer houses as a result of the SMSF ban. And so, in aggregate, there will be 75,000 fewer houses in Australia because of the tax policy of this government and the SMSF ban. So people rightly ask themselves, why does the government want fewer houses in a housing crisis? It's a good question, that I don't have the answer to.

Journalist:

Just on broadly some issues for housing within NSW,  the CFMEU has shook down construction on sites across Sydney, the Domain and Liverpool. What do you make of how that will impact whatever progress they are making?

Senator Bragg:

Well, the housing targets are a dead duck, effectively. I mean, the government has no plan to actually achieve the housing targets. The nation is seeing builders now leading the insolvency figures, and unfortunately, this model of high tax, high regulation and high corruption has meant that there are fewer builders. And it's very hard to make a buck out of housing in Australia under this repressive model where you have red tape, regulation, and taxes. I mean, the fact that we have these new taxes on housing means that there will be fewer houses by definition. It has destroyed the economic model for a number of builders, and I would say to you that there will be fewer and fewer builders in the future, which means you'll have higher and higher factors of falling housing affordability. I mean, it's going to be harder to buy a house in Australia because there'll be fewer houses.

Journalist:

What do you make of the market tightening right now? You said in the past that you wanted to see house prices go to lower numbers, do you think you're getting what you wanted?

Senator Bragg:

Well, you definitely wouldn't be pursuing that policy through higher taxes. I mean, you'd be pursuing higher levels of affordability through building more houses. So we want to see more supply, we don't want to see more taxes. The higher taxes have meant that there will be fewer houses, and over the long run that will push up affordability. And as I say, if you look at the bank data, there are fewer loans coming through from owner-occupiers. So by definition, when the government talk about the recalibration they are wanting to see of the housing system, all you're seeing is fewer people owning houses. So you're not seeing any structural shifts here at all, and I don't think you will, because people can't afford to buy these houses.

Journalist:

Given the FOI revealed there was no modelling, and given it seems that the government's Budget modelling doesn't seem to be reflecting what we're currently seeing in the market, are you concerned that we now have a runaway issue with this Budget?

Senator Bragg:

Well, I don't think the government know what they are doing. So in relation to the SMSF issue, we will now be seeking to amend the TLAB bill before the Senate today to reinstate the distinction that the government had made in their initial tax hikes between new housing and existing housing. So that's what we'll be doing today. We'll be seeking to get the support of the crossbench. Note that the crossbench supported the government's tax hikes on the basis that there would be a distinction between new housing and existing housing. So I invite my crossbench colleagues to consider their position in light of this new Coalition amendment. And as I say, the fact that the FOI revealed that there was no analysis done by the government therefore underpins the industry data which shows that there will be 16,000 transactions, not 4,000 transactions.

Journalist:

So just given you said that the crossbench, given the Greens are the reason this exists in the first place around the SMSF issue, I suppose what would you say, I guess do you think there's any hope there or not really?

Senator Bragg:

Well, I invite all members of the crossbench without singling out any particular party or individual to consider their position. That they voted for a tax hike on the basis that there would be tax benefits accruing to new housing. Because new housing in an SMSF or funded by an SMSF cannot by definition be lived in by the owner of the SMSF. So you are by definition adding to the housing stock of the nation. More houses means lower rents. So I would have thought that even the most ardent critic of the old tax scheme would support the idea that there be at least internal consistency between the two tax measures and that people should be able to add housing stock. The government have gone out of their way to attack SMSFs just because they don't like the investors. Now maybe they don't like the investors because the investors aren't investing in industry super funds. Maybe they don't like the idea of people having self-managed super funds. I'm not sure what it is, but it doesn't matter. The point is that we should be trying to get as many houses as we can in this country. We used to get over 200,000 houses a year on average. Now we only get 170,000 houses a year on average under this government. We need to be getting a quarter of a million houses. So canceling new housing is not the way to go.

Journalist:

On the super factors, Pauline Hanson has said that she wants to see part of super allowed for cost of living issues, but it could drive up inflation. Do you agree with that?

Senator Bragg:

Look, it's a start. That's a cost of living measure, but ultimately the structural problem that the country has is a massive growth in retired renters. And that is something that we must stop because we've always been a country where people who were retired could own a house and that was going to be their most secure way of living economically, psychologically. And so it's very important that we do not give up on the debate that exists around the retirement system and the housing system working together. So over the long term, this is going to be a very important trend that we must be working very hard to stop. Because we want people in retirement to own their own house. The key test of your success in retirement is: do you own your own house?

Journalist:

You said it’s a start, what is the policy you support?

Senator Bragg:

Look, any cost of living measure is going to be good in this environment, but I make the point that the structural shift that is underway under our feet right now in this country is that too many people are retiring without their own house. And so we need to look at how to best calibrate the retirement system and the housing system to ensure that we get more home owners in retirement. That is our solemn duty as policymakers because if you lose that, then you lose not only an economic benefit but a psychological benefit and a societal benefit. That home ownership is a piece of security that people need to have in retirement.

Journalist:

And when you brought out your rethink on the policies, One Nation appeared to be stepping a little bit in that direction, do you think you share the same sentiment with One Nation's leader that it's your money and you should have control over it?

Senator Bragg:

Well as I've said, this is an important debate to have. It's important that we keep on looking at the best way to maximise home ownership. The policy today does nothing for that. It's a short-term measure. It's a sugar hit, potentially. And what we need to be looking at are the long-term factors here. How do we get more people into housing? How do we stop the decline of home ownership in retirement? Because if you go back and look at the Retirement Income Review, it said the key test of your retirement success is whether you own your own house. So that is a key test we should be pursuing as policymakers, working in the national interest, working in the interest of future retirees, not working in the interests of vested interests, banks, unions and co. Okay? Thanks guys.

[Ends]

‍